Skip to main content

About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
MSNBC 36
MSNBCW 36
CSPAN2 8
CSPAN 7
KNTV (NBC) 3
WBAL (NBC) 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
FBC 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KTVU (FOX) 2
WETA 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 126
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 126 (some duplicates have been removed)
. that the economic down tun happened because the government did not tax enough, spend enough, or control enough. as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for washington to tax more, borrow more, and spend more. this idea that our problems were caused by the government that was too small, it is not true. in fact, the major cause of our recent downturn was the housing crisis created by the government policies. the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help middle-class taxpayers is an old idea that has failed. it will not help you get you ahead it will hold you back. it will limit your opportunities and more government isn't going inspirnse more idea, new businesses, it's going to create uncertainty. more government breeds complicated rules and laws that small businesses can't afford to follow. more government raises taxes on employers who pass the costs on to their employees to fewer hows, lower pay, and even layoffs. many government programs that claim to help the middle class often end up hurting them. obamacare was supposed to hel
the united states state department was an extension of the israeli government. things like that are unnerving. there is at least one speech he gave that he did not report that we think there is a copy of that we may get in the next few days. that is why i should -- i would oppose cloture today. i will vote for it after the recess. host: senator lindsey gramm of south carolina. joe is on our independent line. caller: i have interest in giving you a call because i have been doing research on the government. at this time, i have to publicize to the world that the government has committed an act of tyranny. they are doing what they should -- -- they are not doing what they should be done -- be doing for the sake of our people. and this time to play hardball against these individuals were shown in the past 80 years who have not been in the better interest of our children. that means 300 million of us need to get really involved in our government and participate. these guys do not care about this. history is showing it. the congress and senate -- this is why the federalists, james madison, set up t
john: a debate over the role of government, sparked by the president's state-of-the-union address. did he find common ground or open a deeper divide? i'm john dickerson, in for gwen ifill. tonight, on "washington week." >> together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis. we can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger. john: mr. obama tells congress and the nation he's got big ideas. >> i propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in america. i propose a "fix it first" program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs. raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. john: republicans see it as a sign to balloon the government. >> to make it to the middle class no matter where you start out in life, it isn't bestowed to us by washington. >> what's next? >> gabby giffords deserves a vote. the families of newtown deserve a vote! the families of aurora deserve a vote! john: covering the week, karen tumulty of "the washington post," todd purdum of "vanity fair," jeff zeleny with "the
the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. john: republicans see it as a sign to balloon the government. >> to make it to the middle class no matter where you start out in life, it isn't bestowed to us by washington. >> what's next? >> gabby giffords deserves a vote. the families of newtown deserve a vote! the families of aurora deserve a vote! john: covering the week, karen tumulty of "the washington post," todd purdum of "vanity fair," jeff zeleny with "the new york times," and eamon javers of cnbc. >> award-winning reporting and analysis, covering history as it happens, live, from our nation's capital, this is "washington week" with gwen ifill. corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by --. >> we went out and asked people a simple question, how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90's and that's a great thing but one thing that hasn't changed is the official retirement age. the question is, how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of
for a president engaged in hand-to-hand combat congressional republicans over the basic exchanges of government. still, the president said the country could afford all of it. >> nothing i'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. it is not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth. john: , so, karen, if bill clinton kind the famous phrase that the era of big government over, did president obama launch the era of smart government? >> that's going to depend on what side of the aisle you were sitting on when you listened to the speech. but one thing about the speech, there was just a lot in it. he touched every single domestic policy initiative he has ever put together before, even the things that sounded sort of new -- minimum wage, raising it to $9 an hour. in his first campaign, he campaigned on raising it to $9.50 an hour by 2011 but what really came through to me in that speech was his declaration that essentially after two years of doing nothing but fighting with republicans over deficit reduction, he
government and have very different views about what should be done. because of this, parses want to organize and coordinate but campaign finance laws but restraint of that. laws were designed during canada-centered elections and parties to an answer that much. we did it matter that much. we knew where the money was coming from. now we have super pacs and there is a severe mismatch between a high stakes system an old- fashioned laws that force money outside the regulated system and things will only get worse as every member of congress wants their own super pac and we're going to have an arms race. i don't see it becoming evidence that citizens united will have an impact on this. let me start with redistribution. total spending did not explode like many said. at least it doesn't seem that way from initial estimates. total spending was about the same or slightly less compared to 2008 based on estimates by the center for responsive politics. re close to the previous election and it includes all spending. same is true for congressional elections. total spending seems to have declined by 300 mill
of the ethics in government act. it applies only to all nominees for senate confirmed positions, but also to all candidates in federal elected office. my comment about your request for foreign funding are also part of the record. they will be on, way beyond what ever any but has requested that i think it's not feasible in many of the request that you may, to answer them. but the question that he did ask in part d of the form we ask all nominees to fill out is the following. during the past 10 years have you or your spouse received any compensation from or involving any financial or business transaction with a foreign government or an entity controlled by foreign government? the answer is no. you have every right to make a request beyond these requests that are required by all rules, but i do think that we ought to deny a vote to a nominee because he wants, or he is decided not tnotto respond to a request whih not only goes beyond our rule but in some cases go way beyond our rules. finally, if you wish to modify the form that we ask nominees to fill out, that's well and good. we're not going to d
a very dramatic reform of the department as the federal government came in and forced changes down the department's throat after several scandals. bratton latched on to the changes and made sure that the department actually bought into them. and in doing so really changed the story line of the lapd. and that said, this whole episode, while you would think nobody would want to touch dorn were a ten-foot pole we have been inundated with e-mails and calls from lapd cops and from the public that say the old lapd is still alive and well. even if that's not the case, and i don't think it is, the memories and the pain and the scars from that time are still very much on the surface. >> it often goes down to personal experiences with the police that are anecdotal, but of course they drive how you think about any life experience. they dominate your thinking. and of course the past is always with. thank you, joel rubin of "the l.a. time." clint van zandt is now with us. clint, thank you. i've been watching you on knbc as we monitor the situation. do we have clint? we don't have clint. >> yeah
than they did in 2010 because the money made available to the labour welsh government has been used to fund their pet project to secure their majority in the assembly. does the prime minister share my concern that hard-working families in wales are being used in order to fund the labour party's pork-barrel policy in cardiff bay? >> my honorable friend makes a very good point. this government have made available money for a council tax freeze. that has the consequence that money for that freeze is available in wales, so people in wales will know who to blame if their council tax is not frozen. it is the labour assembly government in wales: they are to blame; they are the ones who are charging hard-working people more for their council tax. >> we all remember the prime minister's promise last october that he would legislate to force energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff. will he explain why his energy bill contains no such commitment and why he has broken that promise? >> i have to tell the honorable gentleman that he is completely wrong. the energy bill does exactly
government is actually capable of doing? i mean, you talk about the economy and jobs. there is, obviously, debate how many jobs have actually been created in the economy. look. you pointed out to apple ceo, tim cook was in the audience in the state of the union. he is sitting on over 171 million dollars in cash at apple. why? because uncertainty in the marketplace. tom friedman writing this morning something that caught my eye. he said you can feel the economy wants to launch but washington is sitting on the national mute button. we the people feel like the children of permanently divorcing parents. how does this sequestered business end? the president said during the campaign the sequester, the word for automatic spending cuts, he said it would not happen. is it going to happen? >> i always read tom friedman he has that good minnesota sensibility. >> you guys stick together. >> we do. the column today i think is continuation of that. frankly, i believe it's a continuation of exactly the plan the president laid out in detail in the state of the union on tuesday night. we have already made
matters of process and get beyond government ultimatums, government by crisis, government from lurching from one a traumatic event for 1 after the other, and returned to this appropriations committee, i will remind everyone, is one of over two congressional committees -- the revenue committee gathers revenue to operate the government of the united states. the other is to make wise and prudent expenditures in the interest of the united states. we are constitutionally mandated except finance and appropriations. we were created by congress to govern. we were created to help govern the nation. this is what brings us to our hearing today. we will focus on the impact of the sequester. i think it is a bad idea. it is bad policy. it is a bad economic policy. it is bad governing policy. i really do not like it. it is working with the leadership to be able to find a way to avoid the sequester in the hopes that a higher power find a way for the nine years that it is mandated. what we hope to accomplish today is to take a look at the impacts if the sequester happens for the american people
and defend offer security to our people. it's something that is not acceptable. this is what the government is supposed to be doing. the department of defense has absorbed almost $600 million of defense. with the sequestration and the cr problems there we are looking up to over this period of ten years a trillion dollars cut in a can't and it can't take place. mr. chairman, this hearing is critical to allow the joint chiefs to provide their frank and honest assessment about the impact to the services. the loss of capabilities or readiness in the mismatch between the resources and strategy we're going have to work together to ensure that they american people understand how serious this is. that's a reason for the hearing today. last week lead by senator ayotte, senators mccain, graham, and i introduced a bill to mitigate the impact of sequestration through the end of the fiscal year and provide the department with the for examplability to desperately needs to operate under a continuing resolution. it's not a perfect solution. it is better than doing nothing. there is a growing concern that
government and the previous one. the latest figures show people -- at 600 pounds per pupil per year less than english average. the worst in the entire country. does the prime minister agree that this is simply unfair? will you support our school campaign and pledged to end this discrepancy in this parliament? >> prime minister spent i will look carefully at what my honorable friend said. what -- we have protected the schools budget so that the per pupil funding is the same throughout this parliament. so head teachers can plan on the basis, and by encouraging academy schools and preschools we are making sure that schools get more of the education money going directly to them. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the isf describes the chance was benefits cut is giving with one hand and taking away with many others. does the prime minister think that the sister on hard-working families were at the same time he is giving to millionaires with both hands? >> i don't agree with the honorable lady but that's what the isf saves it as i quoted the lastly, the isf point out that actually the highest increase in t
't in the government when it was happened. sick stuff and seems to be growing. the better he looks, the more these characters are determined to look. did you notice the smile, by the way, on john boehner's face sit behind the president on the state of the union. if you did, you're imagining things. so afraid of the hard-hating republicans that even boehner is scared to death of looking like he might like what the president is saying. let's go at it. our guests very joy read and michael steele former chair of the republican national committee. both very msnbc analysts and good ones. let's take a look at this. is this delay on the hagel vote about playing for time? well, "the new york times" reports today that anti-hagel groups right now are hoping for exactly that. quote, leaders of the group say they expect third efforts to include more phone calls, urging conservative voters to vote no. new efforts to unearth embarrassing details from mr. hagel's past, and potentially a new round of television advertisements pressuring democrats to drop their support for him. it used to be the president got
info about the benghazi situation even though hagel wasn't even in the government when benghazi happened. sick stuff. and it seems to be growing in inverse proportion to obama's popularity. the better he looks, the worse these characters, inhofe, cruz, mccain, and lindsey graham, are determined to look. did you notice the smile on john boehner's face sitting up there behind the president during the state of the union? if you did, you're imagining things. so afraid of the hard hating right of republicans these days of every stripe, even boehner's scared to death of looking like he might like something barack obama had to say. to do that is to risk political death in these days. let's go at it. our guests are joy reid of the grio and michael steele, former chairman of the republican national committee. both are msnbc analysts and good ones. let's take a look at this. is this delay on the hagel vote about playing for time hoping new information comes out about them? "the new york times" reports today that anti-hagel groups are right now hoping for exactly that. quote, leaders of th
of the union address in which he is expected to call for a renewed focus on jobs. of course, more government spending. we will show you how many times the president has had to pivot. also tonight among the latest on of 150-foot wide asteroid that is expected to come closer to striking earth than any other on record. the scientists say the * most likely threat is to the hundreds of weather and telecommunications satellites in geostationary orbit some 22,000 miles above the earth. and what a small college with a big idea, a big idea that could create chaos for more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the country if they follow suit. that plan may prove expensive and embarrassing to all those schools. we'll tell you all about it. we begin with the president's fourth state of the union address and his expected calls for more taxes, more spending, and yet another predicted job creation. a white house aide telling the "wall street journal" the president obama will call for spending aimed at creating jobs, nothing new from a president who has made this declaration repeatedly since he took offic
things but in part on negotiations with the government of afghanistan over legal protections for our troops. the president has made clear that then missions of residual u.s. presence in afghanistan after 2014 will be limited to current terrorism operations and training and advising afghan forces. general austin would bring exceptional experience in overseeing this transition, having commanded u.s. forces in iraq during the reduction of u.s. forces and equipment from iraq. just this past weekend our forces in afghanistan have had a change of command, with general joseph duckworth replacing general john allen as commander of the international securities systems forces and commander of u.s. forces afghanistan. i want to take this opportunity to thank general allen for his thoughtful and devoted leadership in afghanistan, for his forthrightness and his interactions with me and the rest of the members of this committee. when senator reid and i visited afghanistan in january, we saw a real signs of progress, including the afghan security forces increasingly taking the lead responsibility f
to you. does the gop know how to do anything other than say no? i mieean, are they even really governing party? >> well, they're certainly not a governing party. you have to win national elections to govern. they're not going to do that. they're not going to be a governing party until they figure out how to do that, win national elections. what mitch mcconnell is good at here is being an advocate for filibuster reform. i was glad to see the president come out and say there is no 60 vote threshold and that most bills, especially secretaries, deserve an up or down vote. if obama had done that during a filibuster debate, then we might not be having this debate right now. the deal harry reid cut with mitch mcconnell is coming back to bite them. they could have gone for a lot more. they backed off. they shook hands again and went with something milder and then boom, he gets clowned two mornts later. >> nia malika, i want to be real clear. the filibuster has been around for decades. but its use has exploded in this past few years. in fact, two of the three sessions of congress with the worst f
is when one side or the other -- which it has a perfect right to do under our system of government -- decides to try to kill a nomination by denying 60 votes or to stop legislation by 60 votes. the democrats have done it on a regular basis when they were in the minority, and the distinguished majority leader was one of the most effective persons in -- in the senate at doing that. i presided many times over the senate when he objected. i remember the -- you know, when we were trying to get 60 votes to -- to have a permanent change in the estate law and we'd get up to 57 or 58 or 59 and the distinguished majority leader would object. now, what are we doing today? we're doing today exactly what was said when the vote was called. the question was, do 60 of us believe that it's time to end debate on the nomination of the president to be secretary of defense, the leader of the largest military organization in the world, the largest employer in the united states, and the senate armed services committee has reported that recommendation to the senate two days ago? not ten days ago, not 15 d
. you see strife in a number of places. you see governments that are former autocratic governments that are failed or failing, creating further instability. the instability is at issue there. again, they are concerned about the iranian in the region. the region, which adds to the complexity ty ae. and of course, there's this specific issue at syria and continuing work we've got to do in afghanistan as well. same number of of things added together. also, there is a persistent bad from elements like al qaeda and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula that has the ability to generate a threat to the homeland. so that is very, very important. >> are we going to be able to meet those with the troops that are projected to be there? are we going to accomplish anation? we've had so many families in this country sacrifice. is it going to be worth it to that? i know you do this every day. how do you look at family is and say to time, we are going to pull out, maybe at levels they think might be dangerously low as i am geing information on this. how are you able to do that? when do we reach a holl
will give info about the benghazi situation, even though hagel wasn't even in the government when benghazi happened. sick stuff. seems to be growing. the better he looks the worst these characters, inhofe, cruz and lindsey graham are determined to look. notice the smile on john boehner's face sitting behind the president at the state of the union. if you did you're imagining things. so afraid of the hard hating right are republicans these days of every stripe even boehner's scared of looking like he might actually like something barack obama had to say. to do that today is to risk political death in these days of republican defeat, anger, discontent and downright hatred. joy reid of the grio and michael steele, former chair of the republican national committee. both are msnbc analysts and good ones. is this delay on the hagel vote about playing for time, hoping new information comes out about him? "the new york times" reports anti-hagel groups are hoping for exactly that. quote, leaders of these groups said in interviews they expected their efforts to include more phone calls, urging conse
of that slowing down the workings of government. but i actually think that john mccain's -- >> you know, though, richard that in the end, we're hearing in the end most likely he's going to pass and be secretary of defense. so why hold him up over a recess when the pentagon desperately needs somebody at the helm? >> because in a funny sort of way, joe, it's exactly what mccain said. it's a way of getting their pound of flesh. it's a way of sending a message to hagel. and it's just a way of almost acting out the kind of rancor and just the dislike that is out there. >> you seem awfully calm about this and resolved that this is just the way washington works. does this not trouble you at all? >> of course it troubles me, but it's also just the way that washington works. i do think in the end chuck hagel will get the job. and as you say, this is not about defense policy. what is so extraordinary is we actually have major defense issues from sequestration to the pivot towards asia, you name it. and none of this is part of it. and so you mentioned before the budget. what you're seeing here on virtuall
, stuart? >> reporter: we'll see the president make a call for a robust presence of the government's presence in the economy. in three areas he will call for more spending, education, green energy and infrastructure. those are three key areas where the president wants to improve increased spending. it will rely on a mini stimulus program. he will rely on government spending to create jobs. this will be paid for with higher taxes on wealthy individuals, corporations and oil companies. this will be the aggressive pursuit of the economic policies put in place in the first four years. more government spending. martha: we saw a recent poll that showed 2-1 that people do not believe more spending is the route to economic recovery in this country. it got him reelected, these ideas about taxing oil companies and the rich more. but there is another question that has to do with reports of fraud and waste in the existing spending programs. the president's always said he would go after them with a scalpel to make sure the waste is gone. is that happening? >> reporter: the free cell phone syste
. >> chris: congress woman, let's look at the numbers. are you really saying in a government that spends $3.5 trillion a year increased discretionary spending by 14% in the last four years you can't $85 billion to cut to avoid the sequester. >> we have made the cut in terms of agriculture subsidies. there are tens of billions of dollars in cuts there. and that should be balanced with eliminating subsidies for big oil. why should we lower pell grants instead of eliminating the subsidies for big oil? >> chris: why not just cut spending. 85 billion north dakota a $3.5 trillion government. >> let's just back up from with all due respect to the speaker what he said is not the gospel truth. the fact is that a lot of the spending increases came during the bush administration. two unpaid for wars that we got ourselves engaged in. prescription drug plan that added enormous amounts to our spending and the tax cuts of the high end that did not create jobs and create revenue coming in. >> chris: but the total debt has increased $5 trillion sense this president came in. >> well, part of that is from the
a proportionate share of these workers. one of the things we've seen in gop discourse is this idea that government doesn't create jobs. that is simply inaccurate. we know that these are, in fact, very good jobs. jobs that tend to be the least discriminatory jobs because the government actually asserts sort of high quality, nondiscriminatory policies and often has some of the best benefits, retirement, all of that. and the gom is going after those jobs and deepening our economic crisis when there is no need to. >> e.j., not only going after those things in government that provides jobs, they seemed absolutely out raged that the president would propose a $9 federal minimum wage when we've been ensuring the last couple of nights how a single parent with a child is making below the poverty level. and, in fact, former reagan advisor says that haggling over minimum wage is bad politics. >> even he can see this, but they're acting as if this is something that is totally unthinkable. >> raising the minimum wage is popular because there is a moral sense that people have that if you work hard every day, you
isolate a tea party that says it wants small government on the one hand, but really object because -- >> cutting back -- >> cutting back for children who through no fault of their own were born here. rick perry of all people tried to make that comment. what happened? they shot hem down. idealogically and politically it may not be a bad move for obama. smoke them out. make them state just how committed they are to this. yeah. >> really quickly, ari. the other thing is that this whole process, we know the president said this is going to inflame passions, but can the gop debt get through this whout putting their collective foot in their mouth, which is to say it stokes the ayre of passions both in the progressive community and the conservative community and will any -- if they do make it an actual reform, does the rhetoric and resistance that will inevitably come from certain parties of the gop negate the fact that they make on actual policy? >> rubio has the same problem that lindsey graham has, which is can you do enough fire-breathing obama attacks to earn yourself any space to do
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 126 (some duplicates have been removed)